RANGANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

SRI. RANGANNA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RAJANNA S/O. LATE RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

2. SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3. SMT. RADHAMMA D/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

4. SRI.RANGAIAH B.R S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

5. SRI.SHANTHARAJU S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28173 WP No. 17381 of 2026 …PETITIONERS HC-KAR PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT BORASANDRA VILLAGE, SIBI AGRAHARA POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137 (BY SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION, MADHUGIRI - 572 132

TAHSILDHAR, SIRA TALUK, SIRA - 572 137

SMT. RAMAKKA W/O SRI. K.B KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MYSORE ROAD, KALLAMBELLA POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 137 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28173 WP No. 17381 of 2026 HC-KAR RESPONDENT NO.3, FROM MAKING ANY CHANGES IN THE REVENUE RECORDS ON THE BASIS OF ORDER DATED

06.04.2026 PASSED BY AND VIDE ANNERURE C RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO. PTCL/64/2021 UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF APPEAL OR TILL THE TIME THE APPEAL OF PETITIONERS ARE CONSIDERED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioners are said to be the purchasers of lands granted in favour of a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes community. Respondent No.4 is said to be the legal heir of the grantee. It is submitted that respondent No.2, in case number PTCL/64/2021 has passed an order directing resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heir of the grantee.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they intend to file an appeal against the said order passed by respondent - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28173 WP No. 17381 of 2026 HC-KAR No.2 before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that within the appeal period, the Revenue Authorities are intending to mutate the revenue records in favour of the grantee. For the said reason, the writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent No.3, from making any changes in the Revenue Records on the basis of order dated 06.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 in case No.PTCL/64/2021 vide ANNEXURE C until the expiry of period of appeal or till the time the appeal of Petitioners are considered by Appellate Authority; B. To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. "

3. Admittedly, the revenue records have not yet been mutated in the name of the legal heir of the grantee. No illegality has been committed by the authorities so far. A writ petition cannot be filed by the petitioners - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28173 WP No. 17381 of 2026 HC-KAR apprehending an illegal act on behalf of the State Authorities. If the petitioners are having an appellate remedy, they are always at liberty to exercise the same in the manner known to law. If an illegal act is committed by any of the authorities, then in that event, the petitioners are also having the liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. A writ petition cannot be maintained on the apprehension that an illegal act will be committed by the authorities concerned.